Calling chief justice as audit witness will only deepen conflict

The Democratic Party (DP) on Tuesday designated Chief Justice Jo Hee-de as a general witness for the Supreme Court’s Oct. 6 parliamentary audit despite objections from the People Power Party. The ruling party says it wants to question him over his refusal to renominate a Supreme Court justice candidate and allegations involving official expenses.

Since parliamentary audits were restored in 1988 after being abolished under the Constitution enacted by former President Park Chung Hee, the chief justice has customarily delivered opening remarks and left, with the minister of National Court Administration answering lawmakers’ questions. The practice reflects concerns that subjecting the head of the judiciary to legislative oversight could conflict with the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.

Ignoring that convention and putting Jo in the witness seat inevitably invites criticism that a ruling party with an overwhelming parliamentary majority is trying to overpower another branch of government.

The DP also unilaterally called Jo as a witness during last year’s audit, targeting issues including the Supreme Court ruling that sent President Lee Jae Myung’s election law case back to a lower court with a guilty judgment. The hearing descended into shouting and protests between rival lawmakers and ended in disruption. This year risks producing the same result: confrontation and political exhaustion rather than solutions.

The unprecedented standoff between the president and chief justice over the renomination of a Supreme Court justice candidate clearly needs to be resolved quickly. The public also has legitimate questions about Jo’s refusal to comply with the president’s request, which he said lacked specific reasons and a constitutional basis.

But summoning the chief justice to testify at a parliamentary audit is not the proper solution. The ruling party should mediate and ease tensions between the presidential office and the judiciary, not aggravate them.

Jo himself said on Monday that he would explain his position “through the parliamentary audit” and, when necessary, through the Supreme Court spokesperson. His position and reasoning can therefore be heard calmly while respecting the dignity of his office.

This unprecedented conflict cannot be resolved through the surrender or total victory of either side. The ruling party should abandon any appearance of trying to pressure or overpower the judiciary. If lawmakers put Jo on the witness stand to grill him over the renomination dispute, they risk once again turning a parliamentary audit into an arena for partisan combat and adding only to public fatigue.